Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

9/11 Cruise Missile Theory


555soul

Recommended Posts

aquatus1, Sorry to say, I'm dropping out of the discussion. However I want you to know that I've changed my mind about the liquefaction theory.The reason was the addition of the words 'act as a liquid'. If a projectile crashes into an immoveable object, like a granite cliff face at a high enough speed, it is possible it could disintegrate into small enough particles that it could 'behave as a liquid', Like the sand in an hourglass. However, in this case, I don't think that happened. #1 the projectile was not traveling at a high enough speed to break down into particles small enough. #2, the projectile did not crash into an immovable object. After all, the projectile penetrated the wall and continued on thru several more walls before coming to a stop. Tearing thru those walls would have cut down on the projectile's initial speed a great deal. Sorry to say, I did not solve the puzzle to my satisfaction, but I have learned several more clues. KennyB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 580
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • KennyB

    65

  • Obviousman

    48

  • aquatus1

    46

  • Q24

    43

Top Posters In This Topic

aquatus1, Sorry to say, I'm dropping out of the discussion.

For the second time now?

However I want you to know that I've changed my mind about the liquefaction theory.The reason was the addition of the words 'act as a liquid'.

They weren't added, they were there in the first place. You just chose to ignore it until it was shown to you that you were the only person claiming that the aircraft physically changed into a liquid.

If a projectile

Such as a Boeing 757-223...

crashes into an immoveable object, like a granite cliff face at a high enough speed, it is possible it could disintegrate into small enough particles that it could 'behave as a liquid',

Not only is it likely, it is pretty much a done deal, and has been documented before in cases where airplanes have crashed into the sides of mountains.

Like the sand in an hourglass. However, in this case, I don't think that happened.

Why am I not surprised?

#1 the projectile

Correction. The aircraft.

was not traveling at a high enough speed to break down into particles small enough.

So in your estimation, exactly how fast must an object be traveling for this to happen?

#2, the projectile

Correction again. The aircraft.

did not crash into an immovable object. After all, the projectile penetrated the wall and continued on thru several more walls before coming to a stop. Tearing thru those walls would have cut down on the projectile's initial speed a great deal.

Do you understand that objects of different masses traveling at the same speeds have different potential energies? (I might be using the wrong term here)

Why should the thin, aluminum skin or frame structures of the aircraft behave the same as the heavier landing gear or the much heavier engines?

What would rather be hit by, a piece of styrofoam traveling at say... 50 miles per hour, or a brick of the same size and dimensions traveling at the same speed?

Which do you think is going to do more damage to you and why?

Sorry to say, I did not solve the puzzle to my satisfaction,

Why is it I (and probably others) think that the only way you're going to be "satisfied" is if someone comes along and says something to the effect of "Kenny, you are absolutely correct in eveything you have said here"...?

Cz

EDITED for typos...

Edited by Czero 101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is in perfect agreement with my claim. 99.76% of all pilots (or, to make you happy, 99.81% of all pilots) find the situation merits indifference, rather than attention.

That’s fine.

But that indifference and lack of attention to an event does not constitute agreement with you.

I should have made this clear straightaway - without knowing how many pilots have studied the event there is no statistical value as you are trying to set-up. The statistical argument as you are posing it is completely ineffectual, either for or against the 200+ pilots of Patriots Question 9/11.

If you really want to play with figures then please help me here with something more worthwhile. I have searched back through my posts and found the following number of pilots doubting the official story on the Patriots Question 9/11 site at any given time: -

Apr 5th, 08 – 100+

Apr 10th, 09 – 180+

Apr 19th, 09 – 190+

Jul 5th, 09 – 200+

Can you describe the general trend here?

Then feel assured in the knowledge that “truth is the daughter of time”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patriots for 9-11?

A bunch of aging geriatrics?

Yawn!

And you not even an American!

What do you actually care about patriotism for the USA?

What a bunch of crump!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A bunch of ageing geriatrics"? Do you have the age profile of the membership to hand, then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That appears to be a good analysis of the damage, Cz.

Thanks Q24... it appears, though, that the effort was wasted on the one it was intended to enlighten.

Cz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A bunch of ageing geriatrics"? Do you have the age profile of the membership to hand, then?

It's plain who they lead off with, as prime members and examples they wish to publicize.

Look for yourself. The first several people have been interviewd, and their ideas debunked.

I don't have time to do more- but anyone of them who hails "inside job" is, at this date and time, intellectually lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That’s fine.

But that indifference and lack of attention to an event does not constitute agreement with you.

Agreement with what? I have asked, did ask, and continue to ask, that you explain what the significance of less than .24% of all pilots agreeing with you is. I haven't said anything that anyone needs to agree with.

I should have made this clear straightaway - without knowing how many pilots have studied the event there is no statistical value as you are trying to set-up. The statistical argument as you are posing it is completely ineffectual, either for or against the 200+ pilots of Patriots Question 9/11.

Again, this is only true if you assume the matter requires study. Being that it seems to be so obvious certain people expect even amateurs to see the errors immediately, that doesn't seem to be the case.

What is it that you believe requires such intense study from professional pilots? How much time do you think it would take a professional to look at the official report and determine it is, in the words of a certain video "absolutely impossible" to fly a plane that way?

If you really want to play with figures then please help me here with something more worthwhile. I have searched back through my posts and found the following number of pilots doubting the official story on the Patriots Question 9/11 site at any given time: -

Apr 5th, 08 – 100+

Apr 10th, 09 – 180+

Apr 19th, 09 – 190+

Jul 5th, 09 – 200+

Can you describe the general trend here?

Certainly. What is it that you need help with?

Perhaps you need help in determining what the statistical significance of the opinion of 200 pilots is?

Then feel assured in the knowledge that “truth is the daughter of time”.

I do feel assured. Considering how many people were so convinced that this was a conspiracy shortly after 9/11, and seeing the numbers dwindling dramatically, and the arguments not advancing a wit from what they were years ago, to the point that today they are fragile echoes of their former glory, and their speakers a bare handful who must huddle together for survival, yes, I feel assured, and I state with confidence that the 9/11 conspiracies represent the victory of logic and critical thinking over paranoia and conspiracy methodology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

aquatus1, Sorry to say, I'm dropping out of the discussion.

That's too bad. It's an interesting topic, and you have barely scratched the surface.

However I want you to know that I've changed my mind about the liquefaction theory.

That's...good, but Kenny...there is no "liquefaction" theory.

The reason was the addition of the words 'act as a liquid'. If a projectile crashes into an immoveable object, like a granite cliff face at a high enough speed, it is possible it could disintegrate into small enough particles that it could 'behave as a liquid', Like the sand in an hourglass.

Possible, but unlikely. Regardless, that has nothing to do with fluid dynamics. Material does not have to be "tiny" in order to move like a fluid.

However, in this case, I don't think that happened.

That's good. I can't think of anyone else who does either.

#1 the projectile was not traveling at a high enough speed to break down into particles small enough. #2, the projectile did not crash into an immovable object. After all, the projectile penetrated the wall and continued on thru several more walls before coming to a stop. Tearing thru those walls would have cut down on the projectile's initial speed a great deal. Sorry to say, I did not solve the puzzle to my satisfaction, but I have learned several more clues. KennyB

You know...this would be so much easier if you just bit the bullet and allowed yourself to learn what the opposing argument is. You would spend so much less energy arguing against arguments that no one is arguing for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do feel assured. Considering how many people were so convinced that this was a conspiracy shortly after 9/11, and seeing the numbers dwindling dramatically, and the arguments not advancing a wit from what they were years ago, to the point that today they are fragile echoes of their former glory, and their speakers a bare handful who must huddle together for survival, yes, I feel assured, and I state with confidence that the 9/11 conspiracies represent the victory of logic and critical thinking over paranoia and conspiracy methodology.

I already provided figures showing the rising trend of pilots who question the official story.

Here are the membership figures for another group, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911T): -

Jul 7th, 09 - 717

May 31st, 09 – 671

Apr 29th, 09 – 643

Mar 1st, 09 – 600+

Aug 17th, 08 – 428

Aug 3rd, 08 – 418

Jul 29th, 08 – 400+

May 14th, 08 – 380

May 8th, 08 – 360+

Apr 26th, 08 – 300+

Jan 5th, 08 – 233

So when you state “the numbers dwindling” in the face of this evidence, it is clear you are wishing from the heart instead of looking at the facts. This rising trend is across the board in all professions of Truth Movement memberships.

Incidentally the American Institute of Architects (AIA) have a convention coming up in Washington DC on July 14th-16th. The AIA have approved a booth at the event for AE911T to talk about evidence for controlled demolition of the WTC buildings. This is mainstream promotion and it is expected that around a further one hundred architects and engineers will be added to the AE911T membership from this one event alone.

There are thousands of professionals currently doubting the official story, including structural engineers, mechanical engineers, civil engineers, consulting engineers, aerospace engineers, robotics engineers, electrics design engineers, builders and architects, mathematicians, physicists, chemists, geophysicists, university lecturers… [breath]… computer technicians, software engineers, science data analysts, historians, attorneys firemen, fire experts, pilots, demolition experts, former and current government officials, ex-forces personnel, CIA analysts, news reporters, WTC occupants, eyewitnesses, victims’ family members and MANY more.

The last Zogby poll carried out, released in September 2007, shows that over half of Americans want further investigation into the role President Bush and Vice President Cheney played in 9/11.

The mainstream Time magazine has even admitted of the 9/11 Truth Movement, “This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality.”

I hope this brings you up to speed with where we currently stand in the real world, aquatus.

Forget what your heart tells you and think with your head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope this brings you up to speed with where we currently stand in the real world, aquatus. Forget what your heart tells you and think with your head.

Some people simply refuse to adjusts their thoughts on anything Q24, regardless of what information is presented to them. They'll interpret facts and figures how they want them to be rather than seeing them for what they are.

You present numerous amounts of information that would make anyone with common sense at least raise an eyebrow at the goings on surrounding 9/11 and other events that have taken place in the world and our history. For some though, instead of having their eyes opened upon learning such things, they look away and mock those that dare to question the world around them and what they are told to believe. It's sad and unfortunate, but it is the truth.

My hats off to you though for engaging in conversation in the manner you do with those that give such a negative reaction to the information you present; and to those that simply overlook other things you mention when they don't have a worthwhile response that can dispute things you name that are true. You do a far better job at it than I ever could, or at least that I am capable of at the moment.

Hopefully you keep it coming and don't get run off by those that belittle you and/or take a hostile response to your posts as if you are in the wrong for questioning what has taken place. I may not respond or partake in the discussion all the time, but I do learn a lot from the information you present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope this brings you up to speed with where we currently stand in the real world, aquatus.

Forget what your heart tells you and think with your head.

Hmm...well, my head tells me that we should be looking at the numbers of people who advocate the conspiracy theories since...well, since the beginning of the conspiracy. Not just for the past 3 months.

In other words, look at how many conspiracy groups, how many websites, how many lists of professionals, how many theories, existed through the history of 9/11 conspiracies, all 8 years of it, rather than cropping away as much as you can to make the numbers match your expectations.

As I said, as the overall numbers dwindle, the remaining true believers have to huddle together. Like the last remaining neanderthals, the individual tribes are going to grow larger, as the overall population decreases.

But, just so you don't think that you successfully managed to change the topic, you have still not addressed the significance of 200 people out of 85,000 (much less 107,000). Nor have you pointed out what exactly they are supposed to be agreeing with me on, despite attempting to use this question the other times as well.

But if you want to pretend you did. no problem. I'm sure you will bring it up again in the near future. Can you agree, however, that if we are going to talk about whether the numbers of believers are increasing or decreasing, that it would be intellectually honest to look at the whole numbers spanning the entire theory, rather than individual groups without context to the whole?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many of those "architects" are real, hmm? What percentage is that "number" of the total number in the US?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=129163

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My hats off to you though for engaging in conversation in the manner you do with those that give such a negative reaction to the information you present; and to those that simply overlook other things you mention when they don't have a worthwhile response that can dispute things you name that are true. You do a far better job at it than I ever could, or at least that I am capable of at the moment.

Hopefully you keep it coming and don't get run off by those that belittle you and/or take a hostile response to your posts as if you are in the wrong for questioning what has taken place. I may not respond or partake in the discussion all the time, but I do learn a lot from the information you present.

Thank you, Left Field.

The information I post is for any open-minded individuals who are interested.

Hmm...well, my head tells me that we should be looking at the numbers of people who advocate the conspiracy theories since...well, since the beginning of the conspiracy. Not just for the past 3 months.

We do not have information “since the beginning”.

The data I gave for the pilots of Patriots Question 9/11 was over the past 1 year and 3 months. The data for Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth membership was taken from the past 1 year and 6 months. The data shows that the professional membership of these groups is rising.

As I said, as the overall numbers dwindle, the remaining true believers have to huddle together. Like the last remaining neanderthals, the individual tribes are going to grow larger, as the overall population decreases.

Do come on aquatus, I am providing actual data for 9/11 truth groups and you can only respond with some story about Neanderthals. Do you have anything in the way of relevant examples or figures to support your view in the slightest?

But, just so you don't think that you successfully managed to change the topic, you have still not addressed the significance of 200 people out of 85,000 (much less 107,000). Nor have you pointed out what exactly they are supposed to be agreeing with me on, despite attempting to use this question the other times as well.

I addressed your ‘statistical significance’ argument in my post #378 up the page.

Can you agree, however, that if we are going to talk about whether the numbers of believers are increasing or decreasing, that it would be intellectually honest to look at the whole numbers spanning the entire theory, rather than individual groups without context to the whole?

I am drawing conclusions based on all the data we have available, whereas you are drawing conclusions in spite of it.

How many of those "architects" are real, hmm?

I took the time to ask that question of AE911T directly and received some very satisfactory responses here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people... interpret facts and figures how they want them to be rather than seeing them for what they are.

Conclusions drawn and spin attached to complex, multi-decade international issues certainly does happen. That points to the importance of trying to stick to the facts. Too often, there are glaring attempts to turn things into what they are not. When not every bit of information is available, conspiracy rumor starters exploit that, much to their delight or because of some private agenda.

What I think is that if there was a poll or survey taken in the U.S. prior to September, 2001, asking if someone was for or against all that would transpire if those events took place, the answer would be a resounding NO!

That would include private and public officials and individuals, corporations, and states and municipalities.

I bet that would prove to be 100% correct.

Only a fool would think otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The data I gave for the pilots of Patriots Question 9/11 was over the past 1 year and 3 months. The data for Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth membership was taken from the past 1 year and 6 months. The data shows that the professional membership of these groups is rising.

I took the time to ask... AE911T directly and received some very satisfactory responses here.

Richard Guage is sincere. It might also be noted there are 2-300 other such individuals. And???

They are good at what they do, but not more. They are not asked to be consultants or contracted by important professional groups, when it comes to analysing or determining what recommendations to make in regards to building design, after 9-11.

Now, why is that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conclusions drawn and spin attached to complex, multi-decade international issues certainly does happen. That points to the importance of trying to stick to the facts. Too often, there are glaring attempts to turn things into what they are not. When not every bit of information is available, conspiracy rumor starters exploit that, much to their delight or because of some private agenda.

And while there may be some that start conspiracy rumors due to a certain agenda, there are those that make and/or allow for certain things to happen based on their own agenda. It's no secret Bush Jr. wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11 ever happened. 9/11 was simply the "New Pearl Harbor" event mentioned in PNAC that allowed the government to gain the backing of American citizens for an invasion of the Middle East.

I wish all the information were available. I wish the Bush White House was willing to devulge all they knew about 9/11 both before and since the incident. I wish that instead of squashing the attempts to investigate what truly took place that day they would have encouraged the investigation and taken part it in openly with an intertrest in letting the people of America and the rest of the world know the truth. Instead they turned their backs and refused to answer questions and decided that the discussions that would take place about it were done behind closed doors.

They had no interest in a legitimate investigation taking place in regards to what happened on 9/11.

What I think is that if there was a poll or survey taken in the U.S. prior to September, 2001, asking if someone was for or against all that would transpire if those events took place, the answer would be a resounding NO!

What's your point? That response wouldn't surprise anybody - conspiracy theorists or not. Now if we knew the discussions that took place behind closed doors among the worlds elite and those involved, I think you'd be surprised at what you would learn. It's hard for some to fathom, but evil does take place within the world.

Based on your quote above it's as if you would be saying someone like Adolph Hitler could have never existed because no one would ever go about doing the harmful and wrongful things he had done. Unfortunately he and others have existed that perpetrate awful crimes against humanity. It's happened repeatedly throughout the course of history and continues to happen today.

Only a fool would think otherwise.

And only a fool would accept everything at face value and think everything the government and media tells them is the truth. It's also a fool that lets their national and patriotic pride blind them from the truth rather than opening their mind and eyes and taking a real look at what is going on around them.

Many facets of the government are no better than the mafia or other organized criminal coalitions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the over 100 witnesses who saw - operative word SAW - an airliner hit the Pentagon?

The ZERO witnesses who saw a missile or similar?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do not have information “since the beginning”.

So, you believe there is no way to determine around how many people used to promote the idea of a conspiracy before, and how many people promote the idea today?

The data I gave for the pilots of Patriots Question 9/11 was over the past 1 year and 3 months. The data for Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth membership was taken from the past 1 year and 6 months. The data shows that the professional membership of these groups is rising.

I don't recall anyone anyone disagreeing with that. Indeed, I even gave a reason why it was occurring.

Do come on aquatus, I am providing actual data for 9/11 truth groups and you can only respond with some story about Neanderthals. Do you have anything in the way of relevant examples or figures to support your view in the slightest?

You act as if your data has some sort of significance. All you have shown is something that was never in question to begin with. No one disagrees that the membership in these groups is slowly growing.

I addressed your ‘statistical significance’ argument in my post #378 up the page.

Perhaps you can check that post number again? That post was made before the question of statistical significance was even posted. I can't find anything in it that refers to this.

I am drawing conclusions based on all the data we have available, whereas you are drawing conclusions in spite of it.

I would have to disagree with that. I would say that you are purposefully cropping the picture to make your argument seem credible, when in fact it is out of context.

You are, in essence, doing the same thing that Acidhead is doing. You are presenting a small tribe growing in numbers, but pretending that the overall population is irrelevant.

But if you are willing to wait till the weekend, when I have a bit of time, I would be willing to look for data concerning how many believers used to exist, compared to how many do now.

See, I don't believe you when you say that information is not available. I believe that you either have not looked for it, or know of it but pretend that it doesn't exist. So, If I do find this information, then what becomes of your statement that I am drawing conclusions "in spite of" available data?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, you believe there is no way to determine around how many people used to promote the idea of a conspiracy before, and how many people promote the idea today?

There are various polls though none I have found that can be compared directly.

The figures that I do have were only taken from trailing back through my own posts.

I don't recall anyone anyone disagreeing with that. Indeed, I even gave a reason why it was occurring.

Well, you gave a theory but supported it with an unconvincing story about Neanderthals when something actually relevant to the Truth Movement would have been more worthwhile.

No one disagrees that the membership in these groups is slowly growing.

Yes, the professional membership of Truth Movement groups is growing and that should really be end of discussion.

Perhaps you can check that post number again? That post was made before the question of statistical significance was even posted. I can't find anything in it that refers to this.

Post #378 – third paragraph.

“I should have made this clear straightaway – without knowing how many pilots have studied the event there is no statistical value as you are trying to set-up. The statistical argument as you are posing it is completely ineffectual, either for or against the 200+ pilots of Patriots Question 9/11.”

It’s like asking “What is the significance of a can of baked beans?” If you have a kitchen full of food then probably the answer is “insignificant”. If you are on a desert island awaiting rescue for a few days then the answer could be “significant”. Without knowing the circumstances (in the 9/11 case – how many pilots have looked into the event) the question is worthless.

We cannot say if the 200+ pilots are significant or insignificant – your defence against them is mute.

I would have to disagree with that. I would say that you are purposefully cropping the picture to make your argument seem credible, when in fact it is out of context.

I am using all of the information I have. If you have further information, please share it. You could start with finding some defunct truth groups whose pilots or architects and engineers moved to Patriots Question 9/11 or AE911T. I am not aware such defunct groups actually exist… which perhaps explains why you are forced into talking about Neanderthals instead.

I hope that this doesn’t turn into another discussion where you promise to provide information but then fail to deliver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's cut to the chase.

R. Guage is a neurotic nut, and Q24 promotes him.

Oh, I know! It's Q's way of keeping these nuts in the public face, so we can all have a laugh.

Q pasted a link to that website, which headlines about structual engineers. Only the real writeup is full of crock!

So what, Richard Guage is deliberately writing stuff that is full of crap like this?

They cite a variety of concerns about the "collapses" and the inadequacies of official reports. Many, like Lomba, find the unnatural symmetry of all three collapses suspicious. The rapidity of collapse - acknowledged by the government as essentially freefall acceleration - was troubling, too. Some note that the fires were weak; others ask how the tilting upper section of WTC 2 "straightened" itself. Everywhere you look, pieces of the puzzle don't fit what we've been told.

and

Charles Pegelow. "How could all 47 core columns fail at the same instant?" Pegelow has performed design work on offshore oil rigs and tall buildings. His opinion: "Fires could not do that."

Blah blah blah! Both of those statements must be intentionally wrong, because everyone knows the truth. The South Tower did not "right itself", nor was it freefall speed. And, the core columns did not all collapse at the same time.

Dingbat idiots!

Proof positive-

Edited by merril
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, that link I posted is the work of a full blown conspiracy nut. I did not read the comments. It has attracted like-minded individuals who drool on about their pet theories, running contrary to reality.

Nonetheless, the video images still prove what I stated previously, no matter. No freefall, nothing odd about the South Tower coming down, and the core columns still had several members standing after the rest of the building had collapsed.

Back to the topic of this thread-

Obviousman has made a valid point about witnesses. In fact, that Jersey Girl group (?) hired an investigator to go talk to airline employees, about seeing the hijackers board the planes, and he confirmed it (apology, no link).

I don't think that is really an issue. They were seen in the beginning, at the start of their crime.

One other thing Obviousman mentioned was the Purdue LS-DYNA study. Very instructive. Especially with related reports on what happened.

Now, if we could just dispense with the unnatural attraction some people have for Loose Change, as just a bunch of groupies.

It started out as a work of fiction, folks. Remember?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't followed every post, merril, but I don't recall anyone mentioning 'Loose Change' in this thread.

Q24 has mentioned a number of facts that should cause people to scratch their heads about the goings on regarding 9/11. Your close mindedness however prevents you from bothering to further investigate these details. Instead you berate those who question the official story simply because it involves questioning the government - as if we our some type of monstrous harm to human civilization because we don't accept as truth everything the media and government present to us.

As I said earlier, the government had zero interest in any legitimate investigation being done about what happened on, and who brought about the 9/11 attacks.

Edited by *Quinn*
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't followed every post, merril, but I don't recall anyone mentioning 'Loose Change' in this thread.

If I recall correctly, the whole "it was a missile, not a 757 that hit the Pentagon" is a theory presented and heavily vetted by the "Loose Change" crowd.

Also, in my post here I mention that the main source for the information I present regarding the damage to the Pentagon caused by the flight 77 is a site that presents its information as a direct refutation of "Loose Change".

Cz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I recall correctly, the whole "it was a missile, not a 757 that hit the Pentagon" is a theory presented and heavily vetted by the "Loose Change" crowd.

Also, in my post here I mention that the main source for the information I present regarding the damage to the Pentagon caused by the flight 77 is a site that presents its information as a direct refutation of "Loose Change".

Cz

Well, that's perfectly fine, but for someone to bring up 'Loose Change' as if that's where anyone that questions 9/11 gets all their information isn't very accurate. Especially when that person than goes forth to call all those that question the events of that day "Dingbat Idiots".

But anyway, the main point is that it isn't fair to the discussion to make it out as if 'Loose Change' is the be all-end all as to where those that question the official story get their thoughts and/or information from. It's far from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.